The_Lions_Roar Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 Can't be arsdd to look for it but just after he moved in jan he was dropped to the bench and Hughes said he needed to start putting the effort in again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 Ireland plays well for a move or a contract, he's already dropping out of favour at stoke. He signed a new 3 year contract in mid April and started Stokes last 7 games which hardly suggests he is falling out of favour. Sounds like some managers know how to get the most out of players. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted May 24, 2014 Moderator Share Posted May 24, 2014 The 3 managers at Fulham failed with all of their players so a bit unfair to single out, anyway i think Lambert was instructed to do certain things. It is entirely fair to single him out given that the Fulham fans did and 2 managers opted to pick kids ahead of him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 The 3 managers at Fulham failed with all of their players so a bit unfair to single out, anyway i think Lambert was instructed to do certain things. It is entirely fair to single him out given that the Fulham fans did and 2 managers opted to pick kids ahead of him. And that really worked for them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted May 24, 2014 Moderator Share Posted May 24, 2014 The 3 managers at Fulham failed with all of their players so a bit unfair to single out, anyway i think Lambert was instructed to do certain things. It is entirely fair to single him out given that the Fulham fans did and 2 managers opted to pick kids ahead of him. And that really worked for them! That is completely irrelevant though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 No it isn't it just highlights some of the decisions made at the club probably weren't the best. Sounds familiar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted May 24, 2014 Moderator Share Posted May 24, 2014 No it isn't it just highlights some of the decisions made at the club probably weren't the best. Sounds familiar. Yes it is. The outcome of Fulham's season has nothing to do with the performance or otherwise of Darren Bent. I don't think a single person would say they as a club made good decisions, but Bent played under 4 managers last season and none of them could get a level of performance out of him in order to justify keeping him in the side. So to try and suggest Lambert should have got more out of Bent is a pretty unjustified criticism. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 Well back on topic!! So recent stories suggests Lambert has decided to bring the bomb squad back in. Personally I think he is a total hipocrite and its disgusting, now he is in the shite he wants them back in the squad. Well I know what I would do if I was Bent, Hutton etc and it certainly wouldn't include putting out for the club!. We are obviously gonna get no where near our best out of the bomb squad players. Lambert has treated them like outcasts now he is expecting them to play a big part in the team next season, maybe even to put some value on them again. Look! Let make one thing clear here. Lamberts motivation is not that he loves the club and us fans, its probably mostly down to the salary. Someone mentioned maybe £25+k a week. No one is offering him another job, (not even Celtic) an he has recently gone through a divorce, so to me personally, he can hardly afford to quit at the moment, He was obviously waiting for his big pay off, but unfortunately for him Lerner was unwilling to give him his million quid. So people who think he is holding the fort because of his undying loyalty to the club, to me, are very misguided. I think if another premiership club or even Celtic came calling, he would be off.I'm struggling to recall a post in recent times on this site that so singularly fails to grasp the reality of the situation and misses the point so spectacularly as this one Try the one where someone said that Lambert was the best manager we've had in thirty years. Who's to say he won't turn out to be, let's not forget better managers than lambert have been on the edge of getting sacked before turning it around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrackpotForeigner Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 If you meant to say "worse managers" BHV, I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 Yes it is. The outcome of Fulham's season has nothing to do with the performance or otherwise of Darren Bent. I don't think a single person would say they as a club made good decisions, but Bent played under 4 managers last season and none of them could get a level of performance out of him in order to justify keeping him in the side. So to try and suggest Lambert should have got more out of Bent is a pretty unjustified criticism. The outcome of Fulham's season did have something to do with Darren Bent as he was one of the squad players contributing (or not) to their season. He only started 11 league games under the 3 managers (not sure how you get 4) with 2 of those managers being sacked for under performing. IMO Lambert potentially could have used Bent better and then used the money he would have saved strengthening other positions where we actually needed new players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted May 24, 2014 Moderator Share Posted May 24, 2014 Yes it is. The outcome of Fulham's season has nothing to do with the performance or otherwise of Darren Bent. I don't think a single person would say they as a club made good decisions, but Bent played under 4 managers last season and none of them could get a level of performance out of him in order to justify keeping him in the side. So to try and suggest Lambert should have got more out of Bent is a pretty unjustified criticism. The outcome of Fulham's season did have something to do with Darren Bent as he was one of the squad players contributing (or not) to their season. He only started 11 league games under the 3 managers (not sure how you get 4) with 2 of those managers being sacked for under performing. IMO Lambert potentially could have used Bent better and then used the money he would have saved strengthening other positions where we actually needed new players. I mean the outcome of their season doesn't in anyway excuse/justify Bent's performance not that he wasn't a contributing factor to it, clearly he was. Which is my original point, he was so ineffective for them he couldn't get a game even behind their kids. As for 4 manager, I was including Lambert who he started the season under, though didn't play under. I'm struggling with the concept of your argument, you seem to be saying Lambert isn't a good manager and evidence this by saying he should have got more out of Bent. This despite the fact 3 managers at Fulham couldn't which must mean you think Lambert is a better manager. Oh and he made 23 appearances for Fulham last season and got 3 goals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 I mean the outcome of their season doesn't in anyway excuse/justify Bent's performance not that he wasn't a contributing factor to it, clearly he was. Which is my original point, he was so ineffective for them he couldn't get a game even behind their kids. As for 4 manager, I was including Lambert who he started the season under, though didn't play under. I'm struggling with the concept of your argument, you seem to be saying Lambert isn't a good manager and evidence this by saying he should have got more out of Bent. This despite the fact 3 managers at Fulham couldn't which must mean you think Lambert is a better manager. Oh and he made 23 appearances for Fulham last season and got 3 goals. He joined Fulham before our first league game so I would say that is 3 managers. Nice try though! There is more than Lambert's failure to get the best out of Bent as evidence that he is not a good manager! I also think it is fair to say most of their squad under performed under these 3 managers. Judging strikers on the number of starts is IMO a fairer measure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cliffy Biro Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 The 3 managers at Fulham failed with all of their players so a bit unfair to single out, anyway i think Lambert was instructed to do certain things. It is entirely fair to single him out given that the Fulham fans did and 2 managers opted to pick kids ahead of him. Disagree, club in complete freefall 3 managers and he was in and out of the team. I think hes a poor player in truth but for us and fulham fans to single out bent is pretty hilarious. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 If you meant to say "worse managers" BHV, I agree. Ha! Yeah tis totes what I meant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted May 24, 2014 Moderator Share Posted May 24, 2014 He joined Fulham before our first league game so I would say that is 3 managers. Nice try though! There is more than Lambert's failure to get the best out of Bent as evidence that he is not a good manager! I also think it is fair to say most of their squad under performed under these 3 managers. Judging strikers on the number of starts is IMO a fairer measure. Yes it was before the first game, I thought it was after but that is immaterial really. You say there is more 'evidence' than Bent to provide Lambert isn't a good manager, well why not stick to it rather than keep trying to defend this absurd point that he failed to get the best out of Bent given how he performed at Fulham. You can keep trotting out the 'squad under performed' line as much as you want but 3 manager didn't pick him and two gave debuts to kids rather than pick him. And yes, you would as it suits your view. Fact is though he started so few games for a reason. Its laughable, you yourself are highlighting just how few games he started but seem to be refusing to acknowledge the reason why, the reason is Bent himself. Three managers didn't manage to get him to perform, I think that would suggest Lambert got it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dn1982 Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 Yes it is. The outcome of Fulham's season has nothing to do with the performance or otherwise of Darren Bent. I don't think a single person would say they as a club made good decisions, but Bent played under 4 managers last season and none of them could get a level of performance out of him in order to justify keeping him in the side. So to try and suggest Lambert should have got more out of Bent is a pretty unjustified criticism. The outcome of Fulham's season did have something to do with Darren Bent as he was one of the squad players contributing (or not) to their season. He only started 11 league games under the 3 managers (not sure how you get 4) with 2 of those managers being sacked for under performing. IMO Lambert potentially could have used Bent better and then used the money he would have saved strengthening other positions where we actually needed new players. I'm a bit baffled by the logic. 4 managers didn't think Bent did enough to warrant a place in a team worse than us yet he would have had a bigger impact here! He showed he couldn't play with Benteke and the way we set up didn't suit him upfront on his own. To get the best out of Bent you need wingers which we don't have. Also they agreed a 3 million loan fee and to pay his wages of 60k+ 'a week which is about 2.5m over the season so we saved/made about 5.5m on that deal. To me that's good business for someone who may have played 10 times in the season. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 Yes it was before the first game, I thought it was after but that is immaterial really. You say there is more 'evidence' than Bent to provide Lambert isn't a good manager, well why not stick to it rather than keep trying to defend this absurd point that he failed to get the best out of Bent given how he performed at Fulham. You can keep trotting out the 'squad under performed' line as much as you want but 3 manager didn't pick him and two gave debuts to kids rather than pick him. And yes, you would as it suits your view. Fact is though he started so few games for a reason. Its laughable, you yourself are highlighting just how few games he started but seem to be refusing to acknowledge the reason why, the reason is Bent himself. Three managers didn't manage to get him to perform, I think that would suggest Lambert got it right. Most of the players at Fulham under performed and 2 of the managers got sacked therefore it hardly suggests they made the right decisions! The other one, still in charge now, took the team down. That is 3 managers not 4 - a material difference. As for Lambert IMO it was yet another blunder. Money was then spent on Kozak, Helenius and Holt where some of that could have been utilised on other areas of the squad where we were more in need of players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brumstopdogs Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 (edited) I'm a bit baffled by the logic. 4 managers didn't think Bent did enough to warrant a place in a team worse than us yet he would have had a bigger impact here! He showed he couldn't play with Benteke and the way we set up didn't suit him upfront on his own. To get the best out of Bent you need wingers which we don't have. Also they agreed a 3 million loan fee and to pay his wages of 60k+ 'a week which is about 2.5m over the season so we saved/made about 5.5m on that deal. To me that's good business for someone who may have played 10 times in the season. So that's the manager that got sacked, the manager that got sacked, the one that finally took them down and the non existent 4th manager. Can you prove Fulham paid £5.5m? How about we purchased wingers instead of those second rate strikers? Edited May 24, 2014 by Brumstopdogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parker Villan Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 (edited) Let's be honest, with a full squad is Bent likely to get a place in the first team ahead of Benteke, Gabby, Wieman or Kozac? What's more probable is that he's back in the squad because it's a shop window. He's more likely to get noticed, and we can ask a higher price for him than if he's playing with the reserves. I don't imagine he'll still be with us come August. Edited May 24, 2014 by Parker Villan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skruff Posted May 24, 2014 Share Posted May 24, 2014 I'm a bit baffled by the logic. 4 managers didn't think Bent did enough to warrant a place in a team worse than us yet he would have had a bigger impact here! He showed he couldn't play with Benteke and the way we set up didn't suit him upfront on his own. To get the best out of Bent you need wingers which we don't have. Also they agreed a 3 million loan fee and to pay his wages of 60k+ 'a week which is about 2.5m over the season so we saved/made about 5.5m on that deal. To me that's good business for someone who may have played 10 times in the season. So that's the manager that got sacked, the manager that got sacked, the one that finally took them down and the non existent 4th manager. Can you prove Fulham paid £5.5m? How about we purchased wingers instead of those second rate strikers? wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts